Police killing us again!

[scumdog]

More of a matchstick!

been looking again have you???

[munster]

been looking again have you???

Nah, if a subset group of the population have to resort to using phallic batons, they're obviously compensating for something. Basic Logic.

[short-circuit]

Nah, if a subset group of the population have to resort to using phallic batons, they're obviously compensating for something. Basic Logic.

Snap: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...rseas.../page3

Amateur - get back to trolling where you belong http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...post1130128661 (defending your fellow bum chums in blue)....what's the sausage to taco ratio in that "institution"?

[FJRider]

But he had 120 meters to stop didn't he?

shhhhhh .... not so loud ... dont let facts stand in the way of a good rant ...

[Spearfish]

shhhhhh .... not so loud ... dont let facts stand in the way of a good rant ...

Oh shit, that's right.

[Jantar]

The TOP end of the estimated speed was 160 km/hr ... The rider would have had 2.7 seconds to react and stop, or avoid impact ...

No. The top end of the estimated speed was 142 kmh according to the police SCU report. The higher speed was one claimed by the cop's defence. However I guess I'm another one who, without all the facts, believes a higher speed is likely.

Katman put it nicely when said that there two people in the wrong and if either of them was acting correctly this accident might not have happened. I would go further and say there were three people in the wrong. Katman forgot the ute driver who provided the reason for the cop to do the U-turn.

BUT..... If we look at this from another point of view, I would ask just how slow would the rider have to be going to avoid the crash? The police report gives two points to consider:
a) The rider had only 120 m of visibility to the point of impact.
b) The cop would have taken around 7 seconds to complete the turn. This is the important point as the police car was not in the motorcyclist's lane when the rider was 120 m away, it was still on the other side of the road and braking.

So at the first point where the rider could see the police car there was no obstacle. 2 seconds later the motorcyclist's lane was blocked as the police car was a third of the way into the U-turn.

If the rider was travelling at the speed limit he would now have 64 m to react and stop. For a skilled rider that should be almost enough. Lets assume a half second reaction time, and a further half second to load up the brakes, so now its only 36 m to stop from 27.7 m/s. That is doable under perfect conditions, and with room to spare for another famous KB member who only needs 2 m.

Chances are that conditions weren't perfect, and an accident will still have happened at the legal speed limit. Chances are that an accident wouldn't happen at the speed limit if there was a stationary obstacle across the road when the rider was still 120 m away.

At 150 kmh (above the highest official estimate) the rider would have travelled 84 m before the lane was blocked, and he would only have 36 m to react, and stop. Not possible.

But he would probably have started slowing down even before the cop started the U-turn. (I know I would), and hence the skid marks. However at any speed higher than 100 kmh a crash was inevitable.

[HenryDorsetCase]

And had that have been a truck coming over that rise rather than a bike?

Ive been thinking about that too, in the context of some of that truck-cam footage on Campbell nearly Live tonight. a b train at 90kph wouldnt stop fuck all in 120m Just a smear of tin where a commodore used to be and a lingering smell of bacon.

its like those airplane disaster shows. when they reconstruct what happened, often its a sequence of little things, each maybe not that serious by themselves, that, when taken together, mean that 747 falls out of the sky in a rain of fire. that applies here only there were two cockups.

[FJRider]

No. The top end of the estimated speed was 142 kmh according to the police SCU report. The higher speed was one claimed by the cop's defence. However I guess I'm another one who, without all the facts, believes a higher speed is likely.

This report was wrong then ... ???
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5437...s-motorcyclist

Katman put it nicely when said that there two people in the wrong and if either of them was acting correctly this accident might not have happened. I would go further and say there were three people in the wrong. Katman forgot the ute driver who provided the reason for the cop to do the U-turn.

And the motorcyclist probably never featured in the cops intentions ... already locked on to the ute ...

BUT..... If we look at this from another point of view, I would ask just how slow would the rider have to be going to avoid the crash? The police report gives two points to consider:
a) The rider had only 120 m of visibility to the point of impact.
b) The cop would have taken around 7 seconds to complete the turn. This is the important point as the police car was not in the motorcyclist's lane when the rider was 120 m away, it was still on the other side of the road and braking.

So at the first point where the rider could see the police car there was no obstacle. 2 seconds later the motorcyclist's lane was blocked as the police car was a third of the way into the U-turn.

At which time the cop would be checking the road behind him as the road ahead was clear ... when he looked ...

If the rider was travelling at the speed limit he would now have 64 m to react and stop. For a skilled rider that should be almost enough. Lets assume a half second reaction time, and a further half second to load up the brakes, so now its only 36 m to stop from 27.7 m/s. That is doable under perfect conditions, and with room to spare for another famous KB member who only needs 2 m.

Most likely the rider was expecting the cop to let him pass before turning ... assuming HE was the cops target ... he assumed wrong ... so just shaving speed off for a lower lock on speed may have been his intention ...

Chances are that conditions weren't perfect, and an accident will still have happened at the legal speed limit. Chances are that an accident wouldn't happen at the speed limit if there was a stationary obstacle across the road when the rider was still 120 m away.

Only the lucky, get more than ONE chance ...

At 150 kmh (above the highest official estimate) the rider would have travelled 84 m before the lane was blocked, and he would only have 36 m to react, and stop. Not possible.

Maths are not always a strong point for some motorcyclists ... some can't even figure out their fuel consumption ...

... However at any speed higher than 100 kmh a crash was inevitable.

I read that somewhere ... quite often actually ...

[HenryDorsetCase]

Oh, is it only new recuits that get to do the car handling courses?

I used to run a course up by the Police College (I would regularly use their sports field for outdoor exercises) They have an awesome figure 8 course that they run hoses onto and practise sliding and handbrakees and other fun things you shouldn't practise on the road....I sooo want to have a go!



(Keep your mind out of the gutter girl.)

[/QUOTE]


just get a job with any government department, say "I'm booking this car out for a cross town meeting, it might go on a bit, dunno when I'll be back" then go find somewhere a bit secluded, and practice practice practice. You'll be amazed at how quickly you learn.

[Jantar]

This report was wrong then ... ???
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5437...s-motorcyclist
...

Either that, or this one http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5429...re-court-hears is wrong.

[rustic101]

Tragic situation for all parties involved.

I've listed some data with respect to speed/time/distance for those trying to work out reaction time etc.

A vehicle travelling at:

100kph covers 27.7 metres per second
120kph covers 33.3 metres per second
130kph covers 36.1 metres per second
140kph covers 38.8 metres per second
150kph covers 41.6 metres per second
160kph covers 44.4 metres per second

[FJRider]

Either that, or this one http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5429...re-court-hears is wrong.

That would be estimated at the start of the skidmarks ... 39 metres out from the patrol car ... From sighting the patrol car, to starting to skid ... 80 metres was traveled ...

[Jantar]

..... From sighting the patrol car, to starting to skid ... 80 metres was traveled ...

Exactly. But when the patrol car was first sighted it wouldn't have been in the rider's lane, but on the other side of the road, so just normal reactions required. Unless we can see the actual SCU report anything we comment on is just further speculation.

The Police report said the motorcyclist was travelling at between 114 and 142 kmh. The defence claimed 142 - 159 kmh. It doesn't matter how we split these hairs the result was still the same. Even 114 kmh would have resulted in a crash, but then >300 kmh and he would have been through before the lane was blocked.

[Katman]

Exactly. But when the patrol car was first sighted it wouldn't have been in the rider's lane, but on the other side of the road, so just normal reactions required.

Has that been recorded as fact?

Are you suggesting that the motorcyclist was visible to the police officer before he even started turning?

Or are you just indulging in a bit of speculation?

[Jantar]

Has that been recorded as fact?

Are you suggesting that the motorcyclist was visible to the police officer before he even started turning?

Or are you just indulging in a bit of speculation?

Isn't this whole thing just speculation? I have based my speculation on the position of the car across the road at the point of impact, and NO the motorcyclist probably wasn't in view at moment that the officer started to turn his steering wheel. Even at 100 kmh he wouldn't have been visible. But that is also irrellevent for a couple of reasons.

According to the witness who was in the police car, and on the side where the impact occured, the first indication of the presence of the motorcycle was the high pitched sound of his emergency braking.

According to the evidence it is also required that the police officer must have 100 m of clear visibility at the end of the turning manouver, not the beginning. 7 seconds to complete the turn means that he should have had 300 m of clear road visible before the turn, not 120 m.

So you were right in your earlier statement that there was more than one person at fault here.